Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-12-25
Requested 2014-12-11
Authors Alejandro Pérez-Méndez , Rafael Marin-Lopez , Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia , Gabriel Lopez-Millan , Diego R. Lopez , Alan DeKok
I-D last updated 2014-12-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-12-29
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2014-12-29

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may

Document: draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2014-12-25

IETF LC End Date:  2014-12-25

IESG Telechat date: NA


This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC but I have some

Minor issues:

-Not sure about this, [page 1] says Updates: 2865, 6158, 6929 (if approved).
Can an experimental RFC update non-experimental RFCs?

I read the note in Section 12.1. Just raising the question.

Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 4], Intro, it would be good to remind the reader on why the 4096 octet
limit was put in place initially and what has changed since.

-[Page 4], Section 1, "limitation mean that"--->"limitation means that"

-[Page 4], "this approach does entirely solve"---> should it be "does not" ?

-[Page 5], "the set up"--->"the setup"

-[Page 5], "to implement the draft"--->"to implement the RFC"

-[Page 6], "NOT be used to exchange more than 100K of data", not clear what
100K is here? bytes? why?

-[Page 7], "more than 4K of data", as above, not clear what 4K is?

-[Page 9], "the RADIUS and COA"-->"CoA" instead of "COA"

-[Page 14],"other then Additional-Authorization."--->"other than ..."

-[Page 14],"


 RADIUS Chlient"-->"...client"

-[Page 14],"if tey had"--->"if they had"

-[Page 27], "into a even"--->"into an even"


* Not sure if this RFC should reference to draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets as
another alternative to look for?

* Please spell at first use: EAP, NAS, PKI, SAML,ABFAB

*chunk/chunking, would it be better to use fragment/fragmenting/fragmentation
instead ? or mention the two terms are used interchangeably.

Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour